tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post5371667020703548989..comments2024-03-19T01:46:23.275-04:00Comments on Debunking Atheists: UnschooledD. A. N. http://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-29812008793950182552012-02-25T15:02:05.098-05:002012-02-25T15:02:05.098-05:00Bill,
I think that is the problem in the first p...Bill, <br /><br />I think that is the problem in the first place. You hated to do things BECAUSE you were forced to do them. I hated to be forced to do history, I never payed attention and I gave it minimal effort. Today, I soak history up, I find it interesting and I get more today then I ever have. I wish I had discovered it on my own earlier. My kids are very, very, inquisitive and want to know things with excitement. This, of course, I encourage. My daughter was 3 when she learned how to read because she wanted to, same with my boy who is one of the best readers at age 6 now. My 2nd boy, now 5, not so much, so he lags behind on the whole "reading" part. He love math though. But so what, all kids will learn things on their own pace. Plus, its great that his siblings help him out when he does struggle, because he is doing things on his own pace. Its not like my kids will enter college age not knowing how to read, that is for sure. Its just its at their own pace. My kid took a great interest in animation and mod building very early. So instead of boring civil war date memorization she was building game Mods and learning how to manipulate flash. She is the go to person now for any questions about Photoshop, and design programs. She is excelling and is only 10.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-58685249335098388362012-02-25T11:42:22.091-05:002012-02-25T11:42:22.091-05:00Hi Dan,
The video is interesting. I think there i...Hi Dan,<br /><br />The video is interesting. I think there is something to it, but it brings up some questions. <br /><br />Many of the things I enjoy doing are things that I disliked as a kid. I was forced to do them, and I found that I actually like them. Do you force your kids to do anything?<br /><br />My other objection would be that there are some things I hate and have always hated, but are useful skills. I don't think I ever would have made myself learn how to write above about a 4th grade level. I had to be force to learn those things. I guess that leads to the same question as the previous paragraph, but posed a different way.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />BillAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-69153999380668834612011-12-12T12:11:17.619-05:002011-12-12T12:11:17.619-05:00dan misses the point.....again.dan misses the point.....again.Alex Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09083943878149587831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-42442026483739338612011-12-11T20:16:32.188-05:002011-12-11T20:16:32.188-05:00Law did speak truth.
He said, "I really don&...Law did speak truth.<br /><br />He said, "I really don't know what Plantinga's argument is."<br /><br />That pretty much covers it. :7)D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-63599087683336743132011-12-11T11:45:20.596-05:002011-12-11T11:45:20.596-05:00It seems that philosopher Stephen Law also has a g...It seems that philosopher <a href="http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2011/12/naturalism-evolution-and-true-belief.html" rel="nofollow">Stephen Law</a> also has a go at Plantinga.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-74873292009875675652011-12-10T18:45:04.076-05:002011-12-10T18:45:04.076-05:00Ah, poor Dan, not only is he a cunt of the highest...Ah, poor Dan, not only is he a cunt of the highest order (I've not forgotten your 'Atheists give children cancer' BULLSHIT, dick breath), but he's also utterly pathetic when it comes to dealing with the FUCKING FACT that his presup horse puke has been thoroughly destroyed.<br /><br />Dan Marvin? Hopeless Fucking Anus more like.Alex Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09083943878149587831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-5943355039493722952011-12-10T00:17:45.991-05:002011-12-10T00:17:45.991-05:00Here's someone else who deals with Plantinga<a href="http://galileounchained.com/2011/12/07/plantingas-nutty-evolutionary-argument-against-naturalism/" rel="nofollow">Here's someone else</a> who deals with PlantingaReynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-20453470124568611922011-12-09T22:27:52.537-05:002011-12-09T22:27:52.537-05:00cont'd from last post:
=======
A Well, I am no...cont'd from last post:<br />=======<br />A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.<br /><br />Q And just to be clear, why don't we pull up the definition of astrology from Merriam-Webster.<br /><br />MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you would highlight that.<br /><br />BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:<br /><br />Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that's what it says there?<br /><br />A Yes.<br /><br />Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects."<br /><br />That's the scientific theory of astrology?<br /><br />A That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.<br /><br />Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world.<br /><br />And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.<br /><br />Q I didn't take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?<br /><br />A I'm sorry?<br /><br />Q I did not take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?<br /><br />A It seems like that.<br /><br />Q Okay. It seems like that since we started yesterday. But could you turn to page 132 of your deposition?<br /><br />A Yes.<br /><br />Q And if you could turn to the bottom of the page 132, to line 23.<br /><br />A I'm sorry, could you repeat that?<br /><br />Q Page 132, line 23.<br /><br />A Yes.<br /><br />Q And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be, yes." Right?<br /><br />A That's correct.<br /><br />Q Not, it used to be, right?<br /><br />A Well, that's what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I'm not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense.<br /><br />Q I couldn't be a mind reader either.<br /><br />A I'm sorry?<br /><br />Q I couldn't be a mind reader either, correct?<br /><br />A Yes, yes, but I'm sure it would be useful.<br /><br />Q It would make this exchange go much more quickly.<br /><br />THE COURT: You d have to include me, though.<br />======Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-4862381260906238242011-12-09T22:27:24.748-05:002011-12-09T22:27:24.748-05:00For the hell of it: A great big long quote from t...For the hell of it: A great big long quote from that Dover trial link I gave previously:<br /><br />==========<br />Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?<br /><br />A Yes.<br /><br />Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?<br /><br />A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.<br /><br />Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?<br /><br />A That is correct.<br /><br />Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?<br /><br />A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.<br /><br />Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?<br /><br />===<br />con'tdReynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-91595562701131033862011-12-09T22:25:56.357-05:002011-12-09T22:25:56.357-05:00D.A.N. said...quoting me:
>>Dan you're...<b>D.A.N. said...quoting me:<br /><br /> >>Dan you're planning on raising your kids with nothing but a literal YEC view of the universe, are you not?</b><br /><br /><i>Nope none of this is true.</i><br />That's a relief. So, what <b>are</b> you teaching them when it comes to science?<br /><br /><i>Pretty straw man though.</i><br />More like looking at what you say and act like <b>here</b> and drawing a perfectly reasonable, though hopefully wrong conclusion about how you act at home.<br /><br /><i>Sure, they will understand what my views are.</i><br />Will they be taught accurately about what the other views are? You know, to avoid "indoctrination"?<br /><br /><i>So what? I don't think you understand what unschooling really is about. Truth seeking is not about indoctrination as the public schooling and "curriculum" is about.</i><br />Uh huh...so if you were to give them a strictly YEC bible-based view of things, would that be "truth seeking" or "indoctrination".<br /><br />Truth seeking implies giving them ALL the evidence, and letting them make up their own minds. Indoctrination means one gives them a selective version of the evidence to minimize the chances that their views will deviate from what the person wants.<br /><br /><i>As a family, we are not afraid of the truth. NO MATTER what that is.</i><br />I'd hope so. <br /><br /><i>One thing I know for certain is that "evolutionary naturalism is incoherent." (Yes, I am watching Alvin Plantinga right now)</i><br />Right...the side with all the <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/" rel="nofollow">evidence for it</a>? <br /><br />I did mention before on this blog, that the first "evolutionists" used to be YECers, right?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Creationists-Evolution-Scientific-Creationism/dp/0520083938" rel="nofollow">The Creationists</a> by Ronald Numbers.<br /><br />So, no. They did not "presuppose" evolution, in case you were planning on saying that.<br /><br />We're not the ones whose entire reasoning justification is a circle jerk like you presuppers.<br /><br />Now, to that idiot Alvin Plantiga...the same guy who dissed the <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dover_trial" rel="nofollow">Kitzmiller trial</a>? The same one where it was the IDist who were caught lying under oath? The same one where Behe was presented with books that refuted his claims that evolution could not produce the blood clotting cascade? The same one where <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html" rel="nofollow">Behe</a> under cross examination admitted that under the same characteristics that the IDists are trying to use for science, that "astrology" would also count as science?<br /><br />(See that link for links to actual transcripts, etc)<br /><br />Right...sour grapes old man, is what I say to that dolt.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-80049266455304241512011-12-09T20:57:35.965-05:002011-12-09T20:57:35.965-05:00Dan:
When you respond to no one, it is plaus...Dan:<br /><br /> When you respond to no one, it is plausible that you are just too busy. When you avoid only specific questions or only specific people, "spending time with your 7-year-old son" is not going to cut it.<br /> "How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?"<br /> And there is the sham question that practitioners of Presuppositional Baloney use when they are caught in a lie.Pvblivshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17931937272948538181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-5273559225228321902011-12-09T19:51:40.356-05:002011-12-09T19:51:40.356-05:00Is that absolutely true, or is that merely your op...Is that absolutely true, or is that merely your opinion Alex?D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-85845215773833978902011-12-09T19:27:27.406-05:002011-12-09T19:27:27.406-05:00Yet you were able to answer other points.
I don&...Yet you were able to answer other points. <br /><br />I don't blame you wanting to avoid facing the fact that your presup nonsense has been thoroughly destroyed.Alex Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09083943878149587831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-71594692468038411522011-12-09T18:56:33.070-05:002011-12-09T18:56:33.070-05:00If the 'obvious reasons' are being with my...If the 'obvious reasons' are being with my kids, one turned 7 today, then you are correct.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-57951641029946448222011-12-09T13:25:09.015-05:002011-12-09T13:25:09.015-05:00Dan, I notice you are avoiding the points I raised...Dan, I notice you are avoiding the points I raised. I would suggest this is for 'obvious reasons'Alex Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09083943878149587831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-5902977511227565852011-12-09T07:28:50.682-05:002011-12-09T07:28:50.682-05:00Pvb,
How do you know that your reasoning about th...Pvb,<br /><br />How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid? :7pD. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-72996205235250968142011-12-09T05:28:18.359-05:002011-12-09T05:28:18.359-05:00Dan:
You are afraid of the truth. You are a...Dan:<br /><br /> You <i>are</i> afraid of the truth. You are afraid of the possibility that your god does not exist. That is why you have to close your eyes, plug your ears, and say "la, la, la, I presuppose he is real."Pvblivshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17931937272948538181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-55490503709028184952011-12-09T00:46:48.434-05:002011-12-09T00:46:48.434-05:00>>Dan you're planning on raising your ki...>>Dan you're planning on raising your kids with nothing but a literal YEC view of the universe, are you not?<br /><br />Nope none of this is true. Pretty straw man though. Sure, they will understand what my views are. So what? I don't think you understand what unschooling really is about. Truth seeking is not about indoctrination as the public schooling and "curriculum" is about.<br /><br />As a family, we are not afraid of the truth. NO MATTER what that is. <br /><br />One thing I know for certain is that "evolutionary naturalism is incoherent." (Yes, I am watching Alvin Plantinga right now)D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-49283272958662289332011-12-08T20:29:42.954-05:002011-12-08T20:29:42.954-05:00Wait a minute...Dan you're planning on raising...Wait a minute...Dan you're planning on raising your kids with nothing but a literal YEC view of the universe, are you not? Provided with materials from YECers who themselves have to hold to an oath to never deviate from what they've already decided to be true, correct?Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-58312111143463116162011-12-08T19:21:12.700-05:002011-12-08T19:21:12.700-05:00We view "curriculum as a mind altering device...We view "curriculum as a mind altering device."<br /><br /><a href="http://youtu.be/34LpRj5BSJU" rel="nofollow">http://youtu.be/34LpRj5BSJU</a>D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-17353604479730117242011-12-08T07:50:00.566-05:002011-12-08T07:50:00.566-05:00Y'see, I'm a little lost with your replies...Y'see, I'm a little lost with your replies, as you're giving off mixed messaged. On one hand you're claiming that biblegod is a necessary precondition for knowledge, but on the other you're agreeing with the Primacy of Existence, which grounds all knowledge claims WITHOUT any need to appeal to an outside agent.<br /><br />By agreeing that reality would continue to exist without minds to comprehend it, you're admitting that knowledge of this reality can be sought and gained via senses and exploration. You are admitting that there is a reality there to experience. Now, add the fact that you claim we CAN trust our senses to that, and you've torpedoed your own presubullshit POV.<br /><br />I notice Sye has been silent on this topic, but I would say (taking a phrase of his) that the reasons for this are obvious.Alex Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09083943878149587831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-4320261746463489452011-12-08T03:13:42.801-05:002011-12-08T03:13:42.801-05:00dan, do you now claim that you don't accept th...dan, do you now claim that you don't accept the primacy of existence?Alex Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09083943878149587831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-86290099953453814922011-12-07T20:30:37.212-05:002011-12-07T20:30:37.212-05:00And yet another post:
Is it now your claim that a...And yet another post:<br /><i><br />Is it now your claim that an omniscient, omnipotent being could NOT reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?</i><br />What's the evidence, Dan, that such a thing actually DID happen??<br /><br />Especially considering the points I brought up <a href="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2011/12/unschooled.html?showComment=1323219663913#c1504627766056319488" rel="nofollow">here</a>?Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-28822949800528456412011-12-07T20:27:06.819-05:002011-12-07T20:27:06.819-05:00Once again you missed the points. Is "good&qu...<i>Once again you missed the points. Is "good" test scores the MOST important thing? If so why? Did you see the valedictorian speech? You're clueless, its understandable. Denial is just one of your stronger traits.</i><br />Shall we talk about some of <b>your</b> traits, Dan? Like how long it took for you to admit that you had wrongly accused me of cowardice when I said that I would lie to the Germans about hiding Jews, in order to both protect both them and my family? <br /><br />You on the other hand, would take the Jews in, and then <b>admit</b> to the Germans that you had them secure in your faith that your god and your guns would protect you!<br /><br />While there is something to be said for that kind of schooling movement, at least in terms of being better able to adjust the curriculum to each kid, the bottom line is that few parents will have the knowledge or the equipment to properly teach their kids, especially when it comes to the hard sciences. Most especially when it seems that the creationists seem to have a corner on the homeschooling market! No way they'll learn honest science then. <br /><br />Wait'll those kids get to university and find out the extent to which they've been misled.<br /><br /><br />Good, <b>standardized</b> test scores, that have been set up by the relevant people in the field, do help measure a person's aptitude towards that field. While it's no guarantee of success in that field, that is the way to bet. (no points to anyone who gets the original saying I cribbed that from).<br /><br /><br />As for the debate I had with Dustin, <a href="http://anatheistviewpoint.blogspot.com/2011/11/fundamentally-flawed-extra-dustin.html?showComment=1321144061460#c3612932084899496271" rel="nofollow">here</a> <a href="http://anatheistviewpoint.blogspot.com/2011/11/fundamentally-flawed-extra-dustin.html?showComment=1321764980840#c8440647022917333936" rel="nofollow">are</a> are some points I didn't think to make in the debate itself.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-43603694610068999802011-12-07T20:05:15.539-05:002011-12-07T20:05:15.539-05:00Dan
God cannot contradict His own character, as th...<b>Dan</b><br /><i>God cannot contradict His own character, as then he would be able to be both ‘God’ and ‘not God’ at the same time and in the same way, which means He could also be both omnipotent and not omnipotent as well (which is absurd, of course).</i><br />What about the verses in the bible where Jesus says that only the father knows the date and time etc. of the second coming? (<b>Matthew 24:36</b>) I know, it's dealing with "all-knowing" and not "all powerful" but the point remains.<br /><br />Or the scene in Gethsemane when he had prayed (to himself?) that he wanted god's will, not his own. (<b>Matthew 26:39</b>)<br /><br /><i>It’s also important to note that the ability to contradict oneself is not a ‘power’, but a weakness and is necessarily precluded from the scope of omnipotence by definition.</i><br /><br /><i>As for omnibenevolence, ‘good’ is that which comports with the absolute character and nature of God. Since God is the very standard of ‘good’, He cannot do evil, as this would require Him to contradict His character, which, again, is not possible.</i><br />"The very standard of good"? So then genocide is good then? Slavery (the <a href="http://katholon.com/ContraDusman0106.htm" rel="nofollow">biblical form</a> just scroll down to where the word "slavery" is found) --><br /><br /><i>"As to slavery, i believe you are correct: slavery is perfectly biblical--always has been, always will be until Christ comes again and sets up a society that is free of all work, hardship, suffering, and servitude of any kind."</i> is good then? <br /><br />If "god is the very standard of 'good', then why is it that when people do things that your god does (you know, lying, genocide, slavery, etc) that <b>they</b> are called "evil".<br /><br />If "god is the very standard of 'good'", then why is it that "acts of god" are something that insurance companies have to cover? You don't buy insurance to cover for something that's "good" now, do you?Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.com